Yeah, I can see how California's exemption of medical professionals from the "Good Samaritan" laws may have had an influence in this case. If a nurse acts at all she is acting as a professional and not as a "Good Samaritan". I wonder how the assistance of a third-party at the request of the nurse would be considered by a court? Probably as an agent of the medical professional an so the medical professional is still on the hook.

I'd look to Sacramento and the CA courts if I was looking to assign blame in this case. They painted the staff into a corner where the only acceptable response is to do nothing.

It will be interesting to see how this all shakes out. What is needed is more facts, including the official "policy," if it actually exists. We are all reacting to the nurses perception of that policy, after all.

It is worth bearing in mind that had CPR been administered, the chances are that the lady would have expired, anyway. Under ideal circumstances, the recovery rate is around 30% or thereabouts. Usually the time lapse before initiation of CPR is quite critical. As long as the responder adheres to their training protocols, it is hard to see where negligence could be invoked.

Not too long ago, I worked in the local County Assessor's Office and volunteered to respond to any medical emergencies that occurred in our office, which included a large number of citizens seeking information concerning the assessments of their property. I trained on company time for CPR. It is a much better policy to keep taxpayers alive. After all, dead bodies in the hallways constitute a tripping hazard....

I thought we had since learned the caller was not a "nurse"?

It really does not make much difference. CPR only rarely does any good. If they wanted to do any good they should buy an AED.

Ultimately, the woman involved in this main stream media story could have performed CPR on the elderly resident against her employers policy. After showing some display of humanity, she could then have discussed her employment contract with the corporate human resources manager, even if it was for her own future and current mental health state to protect herself against the effects of her employers corporate morality learned helplessness.

She was not employed as a nurse at the facility, but the caller identifies herself on the 911 call as a nurse. When asked, no confirmation from the company spokesman about her licensure type or status, if that makes any difference.

Ultimately all of us need a job unless we are independently wealthy. Someone who clearly understood their employer's requirements did as she agreed to do when she was hired. The time to object to the employer's rules was long before this incident. It is OK to not like the rules you are employed under, but you do not get to break them w/o consequence once you accept employment. If one does not like the rules one is employed under, it is NOT acceptable IMO to decide that when the time comes one will do as one pleases. If you don't like the rules, don't accept the man's money.

No good deed goes unpunished.BTDT,never again.When youve stuck your neck out as per the law,only to have your head chopped off,I understand fully this situation.

Doesnt matter how right you are in the eyes of the Law,can you afford to defend yourself and at what cost? Loss of income,job,career or families security? May not be right,and it isnt,but its reality.

I found out,learned a lesson.Do not involve myself in legal medical matters at all,thats just how the World operates.

Very appropriate topic,survival is certainly an issue here.Yours and your families.

the lady who died was 87 years old.
that's pretty good, isn't it?
I'd certainly be very happy if I made it to 87 and had pretty good health over most of that lifespan.

point being ... when it's your time - it's your time.

Pete2

To the best of my recollection, a quote from one of my Advances Cardiac Life Support (ACLS) Classes.

“Sometimes the last beat of the heart, should be the last beat of the heart.”

Pete

No doubt the "stupid corporate policy" was in response to some "stupid state law". I kid you not. This was obviously a bad and inhumane policy, but it probably didn't come out of nowhere with no reason.

In the assisted care facility where my aunt-in-law lived until recently, they were required by law to "not restrain residents in any way". This included not giving them a pillow to hold on to and play with while sitting in their wheelchairs (Alzheimers facility). A pillow in the lap was considered "restraint" per state law. My aunt was unable to get around without a wheelchair, but due to Alzheimers, didn't realize it. One day when she attempted to stand up due to not being restrained, she fell and broke her hip. Thank God to the politicians for making sure she wasn't restrained even with a standard wheelchair seatbelt. After surgery, rehab and all that, once she was back at the facility - it was back to the no restraint thing, even with a recently repaired broken hip. She of course tried to get up again and again, and fell again and again, and was shipped off to the ER again and again - but at least she wasn't restrained! Finally, it got to be too much for her and she died. At least she wasn't restrained! Thank goodness for stupid politicians and the stupid laws they make, which translate into stupid corporate policies. I can understand why a corporation would make stupid policies - they don't want to have their license to operate yanked for violating some idiot politicians rule.

It may sound bad for a facility to allow an 87 to die needlessly (we'll assume that was the case - don't really know if she was viable in the first place). But what if they had provided CPR, only to have the state yank their license to operate for violating some law regarding medical care, and then putting dozens or hundreds of other residents of the facility out on the street due to the closure? It's bad all the way around. But I'll be willing to bet the idiotic corporate policy was in response to some idiotic state law.